Charles Berlin’s cartoon gives another side of the story. Who is hunting whom?

Let’s look at it from their point of view. Maybe they want to kill humans to prove we exist to their clans?

Okay, maybe that’s farfetched, but let me just put it out there. Bigfoot will not be proven without a body. A living body. A dead body. Not a body part. Not a DNA sample. Not a fecal sample. Labs have their share of those with their “inconclusive results” and “near human” findings.

The type specimen is needed.

No two ways around it. The zoological proof of the actual existence of Bigfoot pivots on a body being found, a living animal being captured, or, yes, a specimen being killed.

But should the hunters be looking over their shoulders too?

Is the scenario here a two-way street?

People want to talk about this issue. Let’s talk about it again.

Individuals are out there with guns. Hunters, farmers and soldiers have said they’ve killed Bigfoot but were afraid Sasquatch was “too close to human” and they would be charged with murder.

Folks show up on radio shows and talk about buried bodies, but no one has shown anyone a body. Most of those shows are based on hoaxes.

Even the Minnesota Iceman body is no more available today than the two bodies that the Bugs’ map do not show from their alleged burial site in Texas. Nor has the buried baby Bigfoot from the Carter Farm been found. Stories, no results.

Where are the bodies? And I don’t mean the dead Bigfoot alone.

Where are the dead human bodies that Bigfoot have killed? Are Bigfoot out there killing humans who are hunting them? Or is this merely a rural legend turning into a urban myth?

Let’s look at the record for both situations….

Our hairy hominoids have a long history of “missed chances”….In 1784 The Times (of London) reported that a group of Lake of the Woods, Manitoba Native Canadians captured a “huge, manlike, hair-covered creature.” But no record exists of what happened to the body. In 1898, in Honduras, Edward Jonathan Hoyt killed a “five-foot creature of the ape family.” But the body was not kept. In 1913, a group of Chinese hunters wounded and captured a hairy, man-like creature, known to the local Tibetans by a name meaning “snowman.” The creature was kept captive in Patang, Sinkiang, until it died five months later. It was described as having a black monkey-like face, and being covered with silvery yellow hair several inches long. Again, no records remain of what became of the body.

And the missed chances continue. The “wild man” captured in the Caucasus in December 1941 (see page 92) was eventually killed and no one knows what happened to the body. In 1954, Colonel K. N. Rana, director of the Nepal Bureau of Mines, reported to the Daily Mail Expedition that Nepalese tribesmen had twice captured Yetis. One prisoner was a baby, but information had reached him too late to follow up. The other incident involved the capture of a male Yeti by tribes people who tied it up and were journeying back with it from the mountains. But when the creature refused to eat and died, they abandoned the carcass, not realizing it would be as valuable dead as alive. Later, no one could relocate the body. The one carcass that did turn up, the Minnesota Iceman in 1968 (see page 54), was quickly replaced by a model–and has been under a cloud of doubt ever since.

There are also numerous reports that Bigfoot and its kin have been shot and killed. Researcher John Green reports that at least five Sasquatch have reportedly been killed in North America, anthropologist Grover Krantz mentions another case, and former hunter Peter Byrne once investigated stories of a dead Bigfoot in British Columbia, but all reports have been extremely vague and no body has ever been produced. And in Mongolia two Wildmen were reportedly shot by a patrol during the border skirmishes between the Russians and the Japanese in 1939. And again, the body vanished.

But what of the reports of people being killed? Where’s the proof there?

Why is this issue a hot topic on radio and within Bigfoot studies? That’s easy, of course, as “death sells.” So let’s go deeper, behind the stories.

Is there any foundation to these “Bigfoot kills people” accounts? In North America, the “evidence” mostly boils down to vague “wilderness” stories.

For instance, here are three examples:

(1) There are the tales from the Nahanni Valley, NWT, Canada, the so-called “Headless Valley,” of the supposed killings of prospectors by the hairy Bushmen, a local name for Sasquatch or surviving Neandertals.

(2) The Yosemite Valley is named after a shadowy group of “people” that pursued the Indians that lived in the valley. The Miwok word yohemiti is tied to their characterizations of their elusive enemies and it means, “Some among them are killers.”

(3) The famed story from Theodore Roosevelt’s The Wilderness Hunter, published in 1890. During the mid-1800s, two hunters, one named Baumann, were camping in the Bitterroot Mountains, on the other side of the Rockies from Yosemite, when they were visited by something that left giant footprints. Then at midnight they saw, in the fire’s light, a huge upright form and smelled it, too.

The next morning, Baumann went to check traps, while his mate packed up. When Baumann returned, he found his friend’s neck broken and four great fang marks in his throat. Roosevelt added, “The footprints of the unknown beast, printed deep in the soft soil, told the whole story… his monstrous assailant, which must have been lurking in the woods, waiting for a chance to catch one of the adventurers unprepared, came silently up from behind, walking with long noiseless steps and seemingly still on two legs…. It had not eaten the body, but apparently had romped and gamboled around it in uncouth and ferocious glee, occasionally rolling it over and over; and had then fled back into the soundless depths of the woods.”

Was Roosevelt’s humanized monster really a Bigfoot or merely an angry grizzly? The Wilderness Hunter tale has joined the Sasquatch literature, nevertheless.

In my writings, I’ve talked of how aggressive Eastern Bigfoot seem to be against dogs. Then I discuss humans being killed:

John Green collected cases of Bigfoot killing dogs, too, but he has only five accounts, other than the Baumann story, of people being killed by alleged Sasquatch. All are second-hand stories. Two from the 1970s came to him from an investigator in Alaska, who told of Bigfoot attacking men living on boats in the Yukon River. Though their dogs drove off the hairy giant, the men later died.

The Bigfoot Bulletin of October 31, 1970, published by California researcher George Haas, carried a fantastic letter from an army trainee named Nick E. Campbell at Fort Ord, California. He related that two Texas National Guard privates, one of them a minister, had told him that at Longview where they lived, there were reports from about 1965 of a giant hairy creature roaming the back country between there and Jefferson, Texas. They said that the creature had reportedly killed a couple of people. Reverend Royal Jacobs told him that as a teenager he was a member of a posse that hunted the creature and he had seen the body of a person the creature had torn apart.

Reports like this are difficult to confirm. One is my files is a UPI clipping, dated September 20, 1965, from Jefferson, Texas, entitled “Town Fed Up With Monster Hunters.” Sheriff Luke Walker is quoted as being upset by the Bigfoot hunters from three states who had overrun his small northeast Texas town since a 13 year old boy came running out of the woods three weeks earlier telling of seeing a big, black hairy thing.

These bipedal, six-foot-tall creatures with stubby noses are well known to the highland minorities of Vietnam and Laos, and called by many names, including nguoi rung, which means “Forest People.” The nguoi rung have been known to occasionally kill or kidnap humans and take them back to their caves.

Look, I’ve been absolutely straightforward in the past: I’m against killing a Bigfoot. But I’m only one person, and the time seems right for a full airing on this here. Let’s discuss an issue that is on the backburner of most Bigfoot exchanges and in the minds of most Bigfooters.

What do you think regarding this two-sided issue?

About Loren ColemanLoren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.

Related Posts

48 Responses to “Should Bigfoot Be Killed To Prove They Exist?”

As one who has the opinion that sasquatch is not nearly as widespread or as populous as other people believe then I say yes it may be that killing one could be the best thing for their ultimate survival.

My personal feeling on this is that sasquatch is possibly dwindling in number in REALITY (hence the lack of interesting evidence coming through these days) although the PSYCHOLOGY/MYTHOLOGY of sasquatch is still as healthy as ever, probably even moreso(hence all the hoaxes, tall tales, blobsquatch pictures etc) and it could be that they become extinct before they are ever proven to have existed. A dead body would obviously initiate proper well funded research which should, in theory at least, take us further forward in properly documenting, understanding and perhaps then helping the species. Without a dead body and final proof…well it’s not going to happen.

How terrible would it be if they did dwindle away to extinction without proof of their existance ever being found?

There is no way on this earth I can accept that sasquatch is a thriving, healthy and widespread species. That defies all logic considering the lack of proof for this animal and the general amount of doubt or dismissal there is for it, or I should say against it.

In short no I am not averse to one being killed. I believe it may well ultimately help them.

SHOULD it? That’s something of a moral question. Will it require physical evidence that can be necropsied? Yes. Although, if such a rare specimen were captured alive, I think most scientists would be more than fine with that. We have, after all, DNA tests, MRI’s, and a host of other ways to examine a specimen in the 21st century without resorting to the extermination of its life. Afterall, seeing HOW this creature behaves will be as monumental as how it exists.

I’m personally opposed to killing anything I’m not going to eat, save for mosquitoes, flies and gnats. (I can’t stand any bug that can fit into an ear canal, long story)
Bigfoot, if he exists, seems to be very shy and quite effectively eludes humans. With that said, I don’t think that it needs any recognition or protection from us. I’m opposed to dropping one.
It’s one thing to take a specimen of bird when you are seeing hundreds of them, but what may be one of only a few members of a dying species… completely different story.
We humans have driven numerous species to extinction. Sadly to say, we have shown very little interest in protecting other species until now. If there is a Bigfoot, he’s a miracle and for once I would like to see humans not destroy something beautiful and wonderful just for a little self gratification. Let’s face it, that’s what killing this animal would be about. Getting your name in the books and your face on the paper. In essence, greed. No amount of psychobabble about scientific discovery or protection of the species is going to change that.

First, let me say that I don’t want to see a Bigfoot killed for any reason.
Then, let me say that it may be necessary. As Kopite says, having absolute proof that Bigfoot exists could lead to new conservation laws aimed directly at protecting the remnant population. It would also give us a bulletproof series of genetic markers which could tell us far more about their numbers and collective health and human/animal status that all the speculation in the world cannot match.
If a body which has expired from natural causes could be found, that would be more ideal than a body resulting from a head-shot, but it looks like that isn’t going to happen. The reasons for this lack of a Bigfoot body are too numerous to go into here (they bury their dead, they have an instinct that makes them burrow into the largest thorn bush they can find when death is near, they fall into streams and rivers while trying to get to water and are buried in the mud, etc. etc.).
But in order to further protect the species, in case they fall prey to a viral cancer similar to that which is wiping out the Tasmanian Devils, or just to keep people from shooting another one, their existence and position on the human/animal tree has to be established. And one look at the quotations in the post about how the captured Bigfoot refused to eat and quickly died anyway, well, wouldn’t a quick death be better than a self imposed death by starvation?
I believe that the Bigfoot are our near cousins and should be treated with the respect due any human. If we can ever prove this without killing one of them, that would be the best possible scenario. It’s beginning to look as if we can’t. There has to be verifiable, irrefutable proof; a body, living or dead. Nothing else will suffice. How we get it is the only real question remaining.

It may be a cold eqaution, but overall the best thing would be to kill three of them. One male,one female, one juvenile. Pretty much all need info could be extracted from them. Then register them under the endangered species act to protect and preserve the rest after they have been proven real.

I’d rather not see a dead Bigfoot on TV with some hunter telling how he took Bigfoot with a .338 Lapua at 400 yards, but it may well be the only way “mainstream” scientists will accept his existence. Sad, but true.

Quite frankly, I’m surprised no one has shot one yet – that we know of.

While I don’t doubt that there are some who might want to be the first to bring in a body for the supposed fortune and fame, I reject MrInspector’s assertion that such motives are the only reason for wanting to shoot a sasquatch. And having seen firsthand how vocal and emotional some members of the “don’t shoot” camp can be, I think the first person to shoot a sasquatch is in for a load of grief — even if most of it is unfounded, unwarranted, and/or misdirected.

As far as I can see, the decision to shoot or not really seems to come down to whether an individual wants to know (i.e. to have proof in hand), or simply to believe. Judging from audience response at the recent Oregon Sasquatch Symposium and from other sasquatch gatherings I have attended, those who are content with the *idea* of sasquatch — either as a “noble savage” or some kind of “pure” version of us, unspoiled by either civilization and technology — far outnumber those who want unqualified proof. But only proof in the form of a body will carry us from guessing and imagining what they are or what they’re like — or even if they’re endangered or not — to actually knowing.

Currently, any assumptions to be made as to the nature of sasquatch must be based on anecdotal accounts of brief sightings. Even accepting those accounts as true, there seems to be just as much, if not more, “evidence” for bigfoot being an animal as there does for it being some kind of of protohuman or primeval saint. (I’m sorry, but I feel the supposed long-term observations of people like Mary Green or “Mike” require some kind of supporting evidence before they can be accepted. Heck, we need proof of Mike’s *existence* as much as his veracity.)

The cynic in me can’t help but observe that if or when a body is procured, people like Loren Coleman and Autumn Williams will be out of a job, so to speak. Because with proof in hand, the subject of bigfoot will move from speculation and reportage to the realm of science. But, since I want to *know,* I come down in the “shoot” camp.

What we REALLY need is for everyone to read Autumn Williams’ ENOCH, then read it again and again, until, as Autumn says, “we GET it!”, get the message that we are discussing an intelligent, sensitive, private and unique group of creatures, and we need to learn to respect its rights just as we would any human group.

We don’t know much about… Eskimos, let’s say, or aborigines or any reclusive minority. Should we kill a few just to satisfy our rampant curiosity about what makes them tick? Are there no logical alternatives to arrogant violence?

Re the historical reports of unknown-primate bodies: a report of a body is the same as a report of a live animal sighting: it may or may not be accurate, but it doesn’t add anything to scientific proof if the body is not around to validate the account.
There are exceptions, but they are rare: the evidence for “Peking Man” isn’t in any doubt, but the bones were examined in detail by scientific experts and photographed before they were lost. No one outside cryptozoology seems to have accepted Cadborosaurus willsi or Krantz’s description of a living G. blacki. Octopus giganteus seemed headed for acceptance before some scientists disputed it on the basis of tests of surviving tissue samples: I don’t think the question is closed, but it’s still accurate to say teuthologists as a group have dismissed it.

The proof demanded of sasquatch is the same as for any other animal, a type specimen. It’s been established in recent cases that a type specimen does not have to be dead or kept in long-term captivity. Relatively brief observation and filming of a captive specimen and the taking of blood for DNA will do. Of course, if sasquatch does indeed exist, getting a captive specimen is likely to be even harder than getting a body: we’re not talking about trapping a bird in a mist-net here.
The question is whether anything short of either shooting or live-trapping a big, dangerous animal is going to suffice. The question is complicated by the hoaxes of photographs and other evidence. A new photo or video, no matter how good, is not going to do it unless backed up by DNA and/or close observation by independent experts.
Unless the animal obliges us by losing a finger in a bear trap or some similarly unlikely circumstance, I think it comes down to this: if the animal can’t be captured, killing a specimen might be what it takes to get the animal and its habitat protected. I say that even though I am certain that, if I personally had a bead on a sasquatch, I could not bring myself to pull the trigger. But I would not condemn the person who did if their motivation was the belief this was the only way to get the species protected.

Oh fer…The Enoch Book is just a flight of whimsical fancy nothing else (Yes I read the damn thing). Projecting a saintly people of the wilds more civilized than we can ever hope to be iconology on a rumored unproven to exist in any real way shape or form possible life form is a sign of an individual with a shaky grasp on reality. Or as William Shatner would put it, “Get a life!”

No, they should not be killed as definitive proof that they exist. Absolutely not! If one could be caught alive, that would be definitive proof with no harm coming to the animal.

I can only think of one scenario in which I would say it would be OK to kill a BigFoot. If a BigFoot was captured by Tom Biscardi, then I would say the humane thing to do, for the sake of the BigFoot, would be to take it’s life for science. I am sure the BigFoot would agree.

It is a moral question, but also a logical question. As for trapping or getting a live specimen–no offense, but we can’t even get good photographic or video proof of BF…let alone trying to anticipate and trap one of the things. That possbility may become a possibility in the future IF we get more information on BF, but first we would need ideas of their numbers, their range, their habitat, etc…

I personally do not think there are large numbers of these creatures…whether their population is dwindling and on the edge of extinction, while a possibility, it is certainly not a fact. If they are indeed nomadic and tend to be solitary, we could be looking at a healthy population that migrates or spreads out for a time before coming back together as a group to mate.

As for killing one, I’m with MattBille here…don’t think I’d have the fortitude to pull the trigger if I had the opportunity, but I won’t condemn someone for doing it. Having a body wouldn’t put Loren or other BF-ologists out of work either…I think it would reorganize priorities about BF and it would surely bring the public and scientific eyes around—I think much more money would pour into the field of finding and studying them…of course the flip side is that once one was shot, there’d be a whole lot more people with guns in the woods wanting to bring one down…for all kinds of less than altruistic reasons and we might then have some worries for the population–something we would have to jump on right away with protection laws.

As to the question of whether BF has attacked and killed people…lots of people disappear in the woods every year…is it conceivable that they’ve run afoul of a BF, either because they antagonized one, or just got too far into its turf? I think that’s a real possibility. Animals attack humans all the time for invading their territory. And BF is most likely got more brain power than your average predator, but it also probably relies a lot on instinct, and protecting itself, it’s mate or its young is going to be a priority, and killing mortally injuring people who threaten it would be normal behavior.

On a side note, it’s interesting to me that here, at cryptomundo, most of us are in favor of bringing in a specimen, even if it means having to kill one. Not judging–I think with the advances in video and photography and the growth of the hoaxers out there, and the fact that sightings pictures and videos cannot be trusted without intense scrutiny, it seems to be the only way to bring this mystery to a real end.

Bigfoot should not be killed, even if possible, and even if that is the only way that some skeptics will finally believe in their existence. Why do humans have to kill something in order to understand it or believe in its existence? Humans kill far too many other sentient creatures for no good reason. We are the most arrogant, cruel, and mendacious creatures who exist on planet earth, and if other creatures are found on other planets we will probably be still be at the top of the list.

As much as I hope these fantastic creatures will continue to live outside of our scientifically biased way of thinking, I sometimes hope that one of them gets creamed by a Mack Truck.
Maybe then the world will take them seriously and start protecting them.

Despite all the interesting comments above, I’m not sure what the issue is here. What practicalities are we discussing? Are kill proponents suggesting that a big game hunter be employed to bring back a dead Sasquatch? Are we letting the word out that a lucky deer hunter SHOULD take THE SHOT if he happens to stumble onto a giant bipedal ape on his deer lease? In other words, what practical difference does it make if Sasquatch researchers and enthusiasts come to a like mind concerning the taking, or not, of a Sasquatch by kill?

Also, kill proponents must be certain Sasquatch is an ape. If it is human, all talk of a kill strategy is an advocacy of murder.

I disagree with the idea that only a full body, dead or alive, will suffice in exciting science. A good, lengthy, clear video would
go a long way in generating scientific interest. A partial, physical piece of evidence would virtually do the trick. Remember, the gorilla was accepted before a full body speciman was attained. Bones and pelts found in a market and sent to academia was enough for science to accept the likelihood of the existence of Africa’s largest ape.

This question has been debated in cryptozoological circles for as long as I can remember, going back to at least the 1960s. But, for all the debate and discussion, no one–to this day–has brought in a dead Bigfoot. As we know, finding a Bigfoot corpse would be a stroke of extreme luck; one doesn’t find dead bears, deer, or other animals in the wild except on the rarest occasions–and some of these animals exist in abundance. Bigfoot, assuredly, is an animal whose numbers are very small, compared to the other large denizens of North American forests, and so the bodies of dead Bigfoot are even less likely to be discovered. If Bigfoot is, as supposed, a kind of hominid, and has some rudimentary intelligence (fairly likely, given how well he’s managed to elude man over the years) then it’s even possible he might bury his dead. At any rate, the chance of finding a dead Bigfoot seems near enough to nil to simply discount it as a possibility.

But again–no one seems to ask why, in all these years of interest in Bigfoot—going back to at least the late 50s—no hunter has brought one in. Of course, the first answer is that they’re very rare… (another answer is that they might not exist at all) but in fact, we have several stories of people who were armed, who had Bigfoot in their sights… and could not shoot. If these stories are to be believed–and I see no reason to disbelieve them any more than any other tales of Bigfoot sightings–then they bolster the already widely-held impression by those who’ve seen the creature that it gives one a very powerful impression of being human, or at least too uncomfortably close to human to simply kill out of hand. Hunters–no matter their zealousness–are not murderers, and when confronted with something that stirs them viscerally as being very man-like, they are very unlikely to shoot. And in fact, the stories we have so far support this supposition. The stories of killed Bigfoot, on the other hand, have thus far produced no evidence. Surely, yes, if someone were to kill such an animal, and think it human, they might be inclined to keep it secret so’s not to suffer any legal consequences. But then too, Bigfoot is not exactly itself a secret, after all these decades. It seems more likely that if one *had* actually been killed by a hunter, we would by now know about it, and have a specimen, or at least some remains of a specimen, to examine.

The “conclusion” one can come to (if we can call it such) is that Bigfoot is just too close to “human” for the average hunter to bring himself or herself to kill it. IF someone someday does kill one, and brings it in, well, okay…. we have our specimen. But it seems highly unlikely that this will happen, given the history, and so therefore, the debate around *whether* to kill it seems somewhat pointless. If someone’s going to kill one, they’ll do so. I doubt anyone will. Even if the existence of the species itself depends on it.

It seems more sensible to talk about building up a body of evidence to support the existence of this creature. Yes, thus far the physical evidence is inconclusive. Well, keep looking for it and collecting it. Sooner or later, a buildup of such evidence will become difficult to ignore. Moreover, attempting to get at the habits and behaviors of Bigfoot–if at all possible–will make it more likely that more conclusive evidence will be found–and perhaps–though this too seems wildly unlikely–an individual could be captured. At any rate, the fact is that patient Bigfoot enthusiasts in the field, over the years, have learned various tidbits of information about the animal, suggesting how it might live, where it might migrate to, and how it behaves. Yes, it’s still largely theory and speculation without much evidence to support it—but it’s a start. The only thing that can be done, it seems to me, is to continue in this vein—because until more evidence is accumulated, no recognized scientific body or institution is going to be willing to invest money into a study. The risk to them is simply too great, given such an outlandishly unlikely creature as Bigfoot.

If, in the meantime, Bigfoot dies out–well, yes, that would be a tragedy. But I still see no answer to the question in that regard. If up to now no one has been able to kill one, I find it highly unlikely that anyone WILL be able to kill one, regardless of the stakes for the species itself. If they DO die out…. we can only hope that our presence has had little or nothing to do with it (though we’re certainly responsible for sending many other species to the brink of extinction–and beyond, into oblivion) and take some reassurance in the fact that they were simply not all that successful a species and that their time had come. It wouldn’t alleviate the tragedy of knowing that we might have been able to do something to halt the loss—but given how difficult these things are to find and see—we couldn’t blame ourselves overly much. We are, after all, only human.

As much as I hate to say it … We will have to kill one first, then capture one alive. After this poor beast is tortured by scientists to figure out what makes it tick, what it is, and how it falls into their theory of evolution … few will stand up for its cause. Once man finally treats this creature, like it does all others, then the numbers will appear for it’s protection.

Then the next question comes … How long until someone asks why isn’t Big Foot paying taxes? Why aren’t we helping him evolve? Why is it allowed to put it’s children in such danger? Why are our tax payers going to help this lazy beast who just wanna lounge around in the woods? Is it wrong for a human and a big foot to have sex? Can we own big foots as pets? Can we educate Big Foot? Can the educated big feet move into human society and be accepted? Can Big Foot run for Office? These sound like silly questions, they even make me laugh, but you know how people are. If we discover there is an sentient “tribe” of ape-men living in America … people will begin sticking their nose into it’s business. After it’s dissection, then comes it’s abuse, from that it will earn it’s Freedom. But how free will this beast really be after we know for sure of it’s existence? Never as free as it is now.

I’ve read Enoch and think it’s great. I agree with “artist” who said we “need to get it” — I’ve been surprised by the responses to the book, both pro and con, that don’t mention what Autumn says about the dynamics, the relationship between researcher and witness and research itself. But on to Bigfoot and “kill/no kill.” It is such an obvious no brainer to me that “No Kill” is the only response to have. I can’t believe it’s even a discussion.

I’m well aware of the arguments about protection, and proof, and so on… I simply do not care. Killing one (or capturing one) does not justify the need (or obsession) some have to prove it exists.

On this I’m stubborn and really don’t care what anyone has to say regarding supporting a killi/capture philosophy.

jimbo said: “Kill one, a body is the only way to definitively prove they exist so the species can get the study/protection it deserves.

Bringing in a live one would work too, but good luck with that. Not to mention a number of them might be injured/maimed in the process and escape, a clean kill would be preferable to that.”

I get that. I understand that for some, that’s the argument, that killing one is really a good thing in order to protect it/them.

Who gets to do the protecting? What authorities, agencies? All the in-fighting and dirty politics and lobbying and changes in policies and so on . . . How will that stop the trigger happy bozos that will go out and hunt for BF despite any laws or protections? Let’s say, for example, Oregon passes a state law making it illegal to kill a BF and passes all kinds of protective laws, but it’s legal in Idaho?

But who the hell are we to decide we get to kill (or capture) one in the first place? THAT is the question.

Why is it so important to gratify one’s personal obsession, under the guise of “proving it to science” — so what? I am serious; so what? After the proof that Bigfoot is, we have the question: Bigfoot is what?

The risks surrounding this idea of “protection” for Bigfoot are too great.

IF someone brought in a bigfoot, dead or alive, and made it available for independent examination, what I think would happen is the Secretary of the Interior would use his emergency authority to prohibit killing the species and designate a no-hunting zone. They’d send FWS rangers and biologists into the area to try to get a picture through tracks, sightings, etc. of what range the species inhabits. This would be followed by formal Interior Dept rulemaking, which can designate an area as protected wilderness, and probably, given the public interest, Congressional action to set the designation into law and to permanently protect the species nationwide. All this would probably be done before the formal process of putting the creature on the Endangered Species list was completed, since that requires some study to be made of the population and the percariousness oof its existence.
I grant you the real events would likely be more complicated than this: this is the simple version that might unfold if the animal is on federal land. If its range includes state land, perhaps there would not be too many more complications, but if it includes private land, there would be a kerfluffle. The discovery would be so momentous that I don’t think anyone would be able to block the use of eminent domain if it was needed: the scientific and public sentiment for protection would be overwhelming. More likely, the landowner(s) would try to avoid that by negotiating a settlement.

Pro — There are a number of eye witness reports that suggest Sasquatch is a predator. They kill pigs, small animals and have repeatedly been spotted chasing elk around Pike’s Peak. As such, they may be widespread but are not numerous. In Greater Yellowstone, for instance, there are 20,000 elk but only 260 wolves. Yet the wolves are ‘thriving.’ There are only about 1,000 grizzly bear there, and one ranger told me that they estimate there are only fourteen mountain lions in the park. Sasquatch apparently resides in 49 U.S. states and all over Canada, though.

Pro/Con — Killing one ‘for science’ would then justify its formal protection on the Endangered Species List. (Then again, proof of its existence does not mean that it is endangered. Anyone who travels around the USA by car can attest that vast tracts of land are wilderness and encroachment has not diminished its habitat anywhere near enough to threaten extinction. Wolves recently left the Endangered Species List.)

Pro — It would provide absolute proof that the species exists. Likewise, it would constitute fodder to ram down the throats of so-called ‘skeptics’ to demonstrate once again that they are wrong. These same type of people once made the same arguments about gorillas, giant squid, etc., and still do about many other species. I’m betting that Giant Squid were alive a lot longer than there has been a carcass in the possession of humans. They didn’t start to exist only when some ‘skeptic’ or ‘scientist’ finally agreed that they do. The U.S. government estimates that we have catalogued 2 million species but there are at least another 2 million yet to be catalogued and possibly as many as 10 million. They are discovering one new species of primate per year lately.

Con — ‘Science’ is a nebulous term. There are many scientists who have concluded based on the extant evidence that Sasquatch is real. DNA from hair and scat samples, along with a number of videotapes of it and many thousands of eye witness sightings, are sufficient evidence to support the claim. Some ‘scientists’ have a mindset in which they cling to a belief to the contrary of evidence. (Clovis First archaeologists are a good example. Those who contend that Columbus — or at best a tiny and brief landing of Vikings — represented the first European incursion into the North American continent are another.) If you killed a Sasquatch, dragged the intact carcass to one of these idiots and draped it over their body, the ‘scientist’ would still cry, “Hoax!” Some people who claim to be skeptics are the least scientific and objective of all, and will accept without confirmation any verbal testimony that supports their belief but reject without investigation any hard evidence contrary to their belief. (Take, for instance, ‘skeptics’ who rejoiced in someone who claimed that the famous Loch Ness Monster photo was a hoax, never questioning whether THAT contention was a hoax.) These are not real scientists and I for one feel no obligation to prove anything to them. Their ‘nuh-uh’ argument is empty (and will evaporate with their deaths). Since there is no REAL need to provide further proof of existence to real science then there is no need to kill one. Real science always admits to a possibility unless PROVEN false. Objective science must admit at the very least that Sasquatch MAY be real and that there is lots of evidence to support that conclusion. Tens of thousands of eye witness reports over many decades and across half the planet, all by itself, suggests that there is something ‘out there.’ Besides, it is irrelevant to the existence of anything whether ‘science’ agrees that it does. Either it exists or it doesn’t. I am not in need of someone who claims to speak authoritatively on behalf of ‘science’ to draw my own conclusions based on the evidence at hand.

Moral questions — Was it right for the U.S. government to encourage the near extinction of the buffalo (even handing out free ammunition) in order to deprive the indigenous inhabitants of the Great Plains of their primary food supply so as to force them onto reservations and take most of the land for the alternative use of other Americans? (The aquifer that supplies the water to most of the Great Plains is nearly empty now, and the mineral content of the soil has diminished by 85% over the past century.) Is it acceptable to hunt any other rival predator to extinction, such as wolves, bear or cougars? Should we reserve the right to do scientific study on the mortal remains of long dead humans, such as Kennewick Man? Is it acceptable for a hunter to kill a wild animal just for the fun of it rather than to provide food? These and more are related considerations.

I think that there is already sufficient evidence to conclude that such a species exists. It is probably a descendant of australopithicus, an ancient giant man/ape. As such, having a carcass would enable scientists to verify that and advance anthropological study of a missing link between apes and humans. (The real oddity is that there is only one extant species of humans, whereas virtually every other animal has multiple variants.) There are likely a number of subspecies, such as the skunk ape of Florida, the webbed foot version in the Gulf coast swamps, the miniature version in SE Asia and the Yeti of the Himalayas. (The Alma of the Altai and Caucasus Mountains of Asia may be extant Neanderthals rather than a subspecies of Sasquatch, and a second species of living humans.) I would not go out of my way to kill one but if a carcass does manifest itself without premeditated hunting then by all means use it to advance science.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of deliberately killing one is that PETA would get lots more beautiful actresses naked to protest…

scoutonymous said: “Is it acceptable for a hunter to kill a wild animal just for the fun of it rather than to provide food? “

A different topic and I don’t want to hijack this thread, but: No, it is not acceptable, and in context of BF, no, it is still not acceptable.

scoutonymous: “It would provide absolute proof that the species exists. Likewise, it would constitute fodder to ram down the throats of so-called ’skeptics’ to demonstrate once again that they are wrong.”

As much as I deplore the uber-pathological skepti-bunkies, and have fun mocking them; as much as I’d love to prove them wrong about BF, that’s not enough reason to justify killing or capturing alive a BF. . . .As you said, scoutonymous, :”These are not real scientists and I for one feel no obligation to prove anything to them. ” yep, feel the same way.

The skeptics aside, I don’t care about proving it to anyone at all . . .

This has been a good discussion. Here’s my reaction to some of the comments.

> In short no I am not averse to one being killed.

No living person has seen a dodo bird, but we don’t doubt their existence — we have samples. No living person is likely to have seen a passenger pigeon (the last one died in September 1, 1914, almost 96 years ago) but we don’t doubt their existence — we have samples.

So I agree that a body will settle the issue — within 24 hours, very likely. This will be followed by a near-violent surge of funding and career-building manuevers that will keep sasquatch in the news for decades: “Bigfoot genome sequenced,” “Mitochondrial DNA links Bigfoot to Andre the Giant: WrestleMania XXVII pre-sells 500 million PPV,” “Grauman’s Chinese Theatre honors celebrity cryptid,” etc.

But I am not advocating murder (if descriptions are accurate, I assume Bigfoot is human — at least human enough not to be gunned down like a rabid squirrel). But keep in mind an old medical axiom: All patients die. Eventually, all Bigfoot will die, whether by falling off ladders or being shot. Let’s not pretend otherwise. An expedition should use tranquillizer darts — they’re not 100% safe, but I’m okay with that, provided we set as many ground rules as possible to maximize the likelihood of a live capture.

> We humans have driven numerous species to extinction.

We’re talking about one sample here. We’re not debating the opening of a restuarant dedicated to Bigfoot-based dishes.

> best thing would be to kill three of them. One male,one female, one juvenile. Pretty much all need info could be extracted from them.

I am not a geneticist, so don’t take my word for anything, but I would say no. A male might be enough, as they carry an X chromosome. Our extensive knowledge of the DNA of primates (especially of the human variety) should make comparison quite fruitful. Heck, we have Neanderthal DNA, and they’ve been dead 20K!

> one doesn’t find dead bears, deer, or other animals in the wild except on the rarest occasions–and some of these animals exist in abundance. Bigfoot, assuredly, is an animal whose numbers are very small

That tired, old piece of rhetoric just doesn’t wash. You leave out the dimension of time. We’ve had newspaper reports of Bigfoot for over 100 years! Yet not once, ever, anywhere, has someone produced a legit body part? Small numbers is not a persuasive argument.

> that is the only way that some skeptics will finally believe in their existence

Speaking of tired, old of rhetoric. Read my point immediately above: 100 years of hearsay, zero years of usable scientific evidence. Who’s got the closed mind? You almost sound like a conspiracy theorist!

It is entirely rational and fair to demand DNA or skeletal evidence before declaring a new species. That’s the whole point of this post.

> these fantastic creatures will continue to live outside of our scientifically biased way of thinking

Why do many assume that big foot is just another wild animal or “ape-like” creature? What if big foot is intelligent and similar to humans in many ways than most of us think? They could just be some overgrown human-like species with too much body hair. Maybe the excess body hair provides them with camoflage in the forest. Might explain the reason why their so hard to find.

I agree with scoutonymous’s comments where most skeptics are so used to being cynical that it becomes more of a trend for them to discredit any evidence provided to them without sensible inspection to disprove the evidences scientifically.

Well, since it is my belief that they are a different breed of humans, I would say no kill.
They are not “animals” or “creatures”…there are no bones to be found because they have burials and they observe rituals as our breed of humans do.

My opinion is yes, go shoot one. I find it surprising that none have been shot before in a country where everything else has and shooting is so popular.
Try not to kill it though, as there will probably be quite a few bears and guys in ghillie suits encountered in the process. W

To begin with I do not need “proof” that these creatures exist. Although I have never seen one myself there have been just too many sightings and they cannot all be brushed off as nutcases or mass hallucination. Since they do exist they are obviously highly intelligent and killing one even for science would be a crime against nature. The fact that there are no carcasses found proves nothing. How many times have you gone into the woods and seen a dead bear carcasse or for that matter a deer carcasse that was not road kill? I have never seen a large mammal carcasse in the woods and I have spent a lot of time in the woods and swamps. The only carcasse I have ever seen was a dead cow that had ventured into the woods and drowned in a creek….Thats it! Bottom line, if a dead one is found great but do not kill an intelligent creature to satisfy a stuffy, close minded, know-it-all scientist with a god complex.

>> one doesn’t find dead bears, deer, or other animals in the wild except on the rarest occasions–and some of these animals exist in abundance. Bigfoot, assuredly, is an animal whose numbers are very small

>That tired, old piece of rhetoric just doesn’t wash. You leave out the dimension of time. We’ve had newspaper reports of Bigfoot for over 100 years! Yet not once, ever, anywhere, has someone produced a legit body part? Small numbers is not a persuasive argument.

Hey, look… I’m not against you on this point. I only try to speak objectively. I don’t consider it outside of the realm of possibility that we’ve simply missed finding a dead Bigfoot all these years, because I acknowledge that it is, in fact, quite accurate to say that finding a dead animal in the wild is very, very rare. Even animals we consider to be abundant. I live in and grew up in a very rural area–and in all my life, I’ve never seen the carcass of an animal out in the wild that died of natural causes. I see road kill all the time… but I don’t find dead animals just laying around when I go on hikes. I can’t recall ever seeing a dead animal in the wild, anytime in my life. Nature’s disposal system is simply that good.

(The exception: I live on a lake. I do see dead fish wash up on shore quite frequently—if you can consider six or seven each summer to be “frequent”).

Now, as for the dimension of time… let’s recall a couple things.

One, we don’t know how intelligent these “animals” are. It may be possible they bury their dead. Which makes it far less likely–to the point of nearly impossible–that we would find them. I assume you acknowledge this.

Two, we might say, yes, that Bigfoot reports have been around for a long time—but this is not the same thing as an active *search* for such creatures, OR their carcasses. Moreover, it must be remembered that the Pacific Northwest (assuming we claim that as “home territory” for Bigfoot) is a VAST swath of land, the size of which boggles the mind of an easterner such as myself. And this vast territory has been only sparsely populated–at least in modern times. In fact, while the population HAS steadily increased, we’d have to admit that once one gets out of the larger cities (Seattle, Portland, etc.) it is still a VERY rural, VERY wild, and very sparsely populated region. This further cuts down, significantly, on the likelihood of someone simply stumbling across a dead Bigfoot–especially from a historical perspective, since if anything, the place is damn near devoid of people the further back you go (excepting the presence, of course, of the native peoples—but then they did not practice “science” as we know it, and if they found a dead Bigfoot, they certainly would not have been inclined, as we modern European-descendants are, to save the “evidence” for further study and taxonomy).

In short, I don’t find the argument of “time” to be persuasive either. To me both sides of this question of finding a carcass are a wash, once they’re put up against each other. One hundred or so years is not that long, given the small number of people wandering about this vast region of the continent until very recently—and it seems hardly unlikely to me that we therefore would not have come across a carcass of a Bigfoot, even in all that time.

Personally, I think the human/murder rationale for not killing a BF is a pretty flimsy reason not to kill one. If someone did indeed shoot one, and the body was brought in, while it could be examined and verified as a new species, determining the validity of its human-ness would take years, and would inevitably take getting a live specimen in order to prove that it had and was capable of enough human qualities to qualify as human. Just because it’s big and has human form does not mean that it is indeed human.

Now having said that, BF does deserve respect as a living breathing critter. As I said earlier, would I have the guts to pull the trigger if I came across one and had the chance to end the drama? Honestly I do not know, and probably wouldnt’ until I was in that circumstance. Personally, I’m content with my belief that he’s out there, and no debunker can offer any kind proof that he’s not out there…they haven’t offered anything valid yet.

I go back and forth on whether or not I would want one brought in on a slab with a bullet in it…see, even now I go back and forth referring to BF as “he” in one paragraph, and “it” in another. Dehumanizing BF makes it easier to say, let’s shoot one. On the other hand, bringing in a specimen would solve the issue altogther.

Then there’s yet the third hand…proving the existence of the gorilla has not protected it from poachers…

It’s a gray world we live in…and there is no easy or truth to this question…it just comes down to what you’re willing to live with.

Considering that with telephoto lenses it is considerable easier to take a clear photo of something than to kill it, it may be better to take a clear photo….of course, this is assuming 8 foot tall apemen exist in the United States.

I too have had one a female in my sights with a .270 while 30ft up in a tree stand, no doubt I could have killed it. I watched her stalk some hogs and kill one, it was a thing of wonder to witness. To see something that big move so gracefully, and attack with such speed & power. It was a privilege to see this beautiful beast, doing what God made her for. Even when she looked up at me, and I had her dead to rights, I wouldn’t have hurt her unless she had attacked me. Yeah, I was scared, but I wasn’t in a panic. I was in awe of what I was lucky enough to see. I know I will never get that lucky again…

This creature has a humanity about it. Primal yes, but it knows, it thinks, it reasons, it is self aware. It knows what humans are, and avoids us if possible. I think if you do see one, it is a case of being in the wrong place at the right time.

Until the naysayers have a body to “poke with a stick” there will always be questions though.

Am I for the killing of a squatch to prove its existence? Nope. On the other hand, I am not really that concerned for the creature. Don’t even think laws passed to protect it in some places are really all that necessary. It seems to doing a good job of keeping itself hidden from danger. Except for one film shot all those years ago (and that one is debated heavily), we cannot seem to even get a picture or video close enough for irrefutable proof.

As for a live capture of one, you can count me out on that adventure. If a chimpanzee is 3 or 4 times as strong as a human, think how much more a bigfoot would be. What if the tranquilizer wore off too soon, or even whatever measures you used to immobilize it didn’t work, something that big in a nasty mood would leave a really big mess.

Once met a guy who told me of an encounter he had with such a creature in the Alaskan wilderness. He had one in his scope for almost a sure kill. “Why didn’t you kill it?” I asked. “He might have had friends and family around, and it was going to be a while before the airplane would be back to pick me up” was his only reply and he didn’t discuss it again.

If we do ever acquire a specimen, it will probably be one that was too old or too sick to make it across the highway before a semi got it, or one which died and was found before decomposing.

But, in the meantime, if you do see one and you are armed, and you are just lucky enough to bring it down (without being torn apart by an angry injured squatch), then cut off the largest part of its anatomy you can carry and take it to the proper authorities (such as a Meldrum or another in the field).

Body or no body, it all really comes down to the need for solid, verifiable, physical evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny. We need something, be it a body, solid DNA samples, or even a fossil. Not even a fossil of sasquatch necessarily but rather one of anything even remotely like it in the fossil records of North America.

With remains found in the woods, it has been discussed on this thread already that such remains of animals in the wild are difficult to come by. This is absolutely true. The elements, decomposition, and scavengers all conspire to make short work of carcasses in the wild. It is uncommon to come across the remains of even very common animals due to the sometimes very fast acting natural forces contributing to their degradation.

In this sense, I can somewhat understand how a dead sasquatch could go unfound, especially if the carcass was in a remote location. This makes sense on a certain level. However, I do think it is important to remember that if sightings are anything to go by (and they are the largest body of any sort of evidence for sasquatch), then we are not dealing with a rarely seen, or really even a particularly elusive creature. There are thousands of sightings reports, from every state of the Union (yes, including Hawaii, apparently), by people from all walks of life, and taking place not only in remote areas but often quite near roads, towns, and other human settlements. The sheer vast amount of sightings from every corner of the country sometimes makes it hard for me to categorize the sasquatch as a fleeting, rarely glimpsed creature regulated to the most remote, uninhabited areas. This is a creature that seems to be showing up all over the place.

If sightings reports are to be given weight, then we are talking about a creature that sometimes seems to be almost ubiquitous. Now perhaps, like other forest dwellers, a dead body is going to go unnoticed. This is possible I suppose, and I won’t discount that notion. Yet even accounting for this, I have always found it interesting that with such a large creature seen by so many across so large an area has never left behind so little tangible evidence for us to study, something which can be held up as concrete, verifiable physical evidence. Blood, hair, tracks, even video footage, none of those associated with sasquatch so far have proven to be anything more than tantalizing mysteries that have yet to coalesce into anything that can conclusively verify that there is anything out there.

Why, with an animal seen by so often by so many across so large an area, is the physical evidence thus far so vaporous?

Of course I do not mean to say that such evidence is not out there to be found. We simply don’t know. However, if one wants to conclusively prove sasquatch, or even build a solid case among the scientific community that it should even use its resources to look, then one is going to have to present solid physical evidence that holds up to scientific scrutiny from all angles. Good hair samples, blood samples, a sampling of high quality video footage, something. If it is out there, then we need to focus on gathering it.

Furthermore, not only do we need to provide this evidence, but it has to be handled in the right way.

Simply put, any evidence has to be presented for scrutiny by any who care to study it. This scrutiny is key, and something that I feel is sadly lacking in the investigation and handling of a good amount of so-called “evidence” for sasquatch. In any scientific discipline, you will find that evidence put forward for any hypothesis is going to go through a stringent, almost Darwinian process of peer review and careful analysis. Scientists do not all walk around patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other. There can be fierce debate and challenge when it comes to new data. It will be picked apart from every angle and this is a good thing because whatever remains at the end of this process has a greater liklihood of actually being somewhat close to the truth. Isn’t that what we all want?

This is only par for the course with any new findings in any field of science, especially when dealing with something as radical and challenging to our established paradigm as an undiscovered, bipedal ape living in North America. Paradigms can be changed, but expect it to require large amounts of evidence that withstand peer review and scrutiny.

I think this sort of peer review and scientific analysis is sorely lacking in the handling of much evidence for sasquatch. You cannot expect to be taken seriously by the scientific community at all if for instance you have “evidence” and are charging people money to get a look at it. Likewise, you cannot garner a case for evidence to be taken seriously if it is only presented to those who agree with your own opinion on what it represents.

Also, whenever you see a major scientific breakthrough announced on TV or in a newspaper, many people do not realize that these findings have more often than not been thoroughly picked over and peer reviewed by scientists, often from several fields, before any big announcements were made to the public. The big new discovery you hear about often has years of hard work that went into analyzing, checking, and double checking data that has been scrutinized from various angles. Can the same thing be said for discoveries within cryptozoology? I’m not so sure.

Again, with evidence of sasquatch, we often have bold claims and announcements made without any of this process that is so integrel to discerning what is really going on in any other respectable field of science. This does nothing to impress those in the scientific community who cryptozoology so desperately wants to appeal to. Indeed, it only muddies the waters, makes it harder to discern what evidence is worth looking at, and detracts from the credibility of this field.

So in short, I think we need two things. We need something more tangible than what we have, and we need it to be presented and analyzed in a way in keeping with how science is done in any other field. Cryptozoology is not exempt from handling its evidence in such a professional and scientific manner. Say what you will about “scientists not wanting to look at the evidence,” but really if you have evidence that is unfit to be scrutinized in this manner, then there is a good chance it is simply poor evidence.

Do we need to shoot a sasquatch in order to get this sort of evidence and initiate this scientific process I’m talking about? Perhaps not. Without a body, any sort of compelling physical evidence of sasquatch will do, or even clear, high quality footage of one. But in the absence of a body we do need something tangible, and more perhaps even importantly, it needs to be subjected to established, acceptable scientific protocols and procedures.

We do ourselves no favors by ignoring the fact that science is skeptical by nature, and there are ways in which we in the cryptozoology community have to treat our evidence that will get us close to finding out what is really going on rather than what we’d like to think is going on. That is, after all, the goal of science to begin with.

A body would be nice, sure. That would certainly be the ace in the hole that we all want. You can’t get more definitive than that. However, I don’t think it is absolutely necessary for gaining the attention of the scientific community.

“”Considering that with telephoto lenses it is considerable easier to take a clear photo of something than to kill it, it may be better to take a clear photo….of course, this is assuming 8 foot tall apemen exist in the United States.””

I’m afraid a photo, even a clear one, just won’t do. It won’t be proof. It will be just another tantalising piece of evidence that a lot of people will still poo poo.

Unfortunately ONLY a body or a body part will suffice. Nothing less. I don’t even think DNA will do it.

Judging by Matlock’s experience – “I too have had one a female in my sights with a .270 while 30ft up in a tree stand, no doubt I could have killed it. I watched her stalk some hogs and kill one, it was a thing of wonder to witness. To see something that big move so gracefully, and attack with such speed & power. It was a privilege to see this beautiful beast, doing what God made her for.” – all he needs to do is buy a $30 Action Cam and tape it to his rifle scope. Will he, though? W.

springheeledjack: Personally, I think the human/murder rationale for not killing a BF is a pretty flimsy reason not to kill one.

True we don’t know how close to human BF is, but that’s beside the point. It’s a being, a creature, an animal, in the sense we all are, and regardless of BF’s close to human-ness or not, killing one or capturing it just because you can is simply wrong; proving it’s existence, regardless of how “animal’ like it is or not, to satisfy the ego, is something I find personally reprehensible.

Now having said that, BF does deserve respect as a living breathing critter. As I said earlier, would I have the guts to pull the trigger if I came across one and had the chance to end the drama? Honestly I do not know,..

An honest comment. For myself, there is no question I could not, would not.

I go back and forth on whether or not I would want one brought in on a slab with a bullet in it…see, even now I go back and forth referring to BF as “he” in one paragraph, and “it” in another. Dehumanizing BF makes it easier to say, let’s shoot one. On the other hand, bringing in a specimen would solve the issue altogther.

I agree, by using “it” for whatever animal we’re talking about, makes it easier to marginalize it. If it’s an “it” it’s not really a living being, and we can justify the killing.

It’s a gray world we live in…and there is no easy or truth to this question…it just comes down to what you’re willing to live with.

I’m aware of how intractable my opinion is, but for me, there is not “gray” concerning the question of killing (or capturing) a Bigfoot. I have a hard time understanding how some are hesitant on this issue.

If it’s already dead then shpw the body. But killing it would perhaps be overkill (pun there?) . But can’t find a body of something that does not exist… Maybe a Yeti body…Yeah. Tjat could perhaps happen…

Regan Lee–I’ll tell you why this issue is a hard one, and why people like myself are willing to entertain the idea of killing a BF.

How many people here would get absolutely ecstatic if a BF body was brought in? Think what it would mean to the field of cryptozoology, what it would mean to science, and the ramifications of what we think we know about the earth and what lives here…then you add the equation of the fact that the BF was brought in because a hunter shot him.

Again, how many people here would feel a little bad that someone had taken the shot, maybe guilty…but, still excited that we solved the mystery?

That’s the lure–sacrifice one BF to solve the riddle, to expand what we know, perhaps expand our knowledge of our own ancestry (ASSuming you’re an evolutionist that is), and justify the decades of searching, hunting and striving to find a large hairy humanoid that’s remained hidden for so long.

Does the sacrifice of one BF justify all of that? I know, you’re saying no it’s not.

However, let’s take this a step in the other direction…say we send our same hunters out there with high powered tranquilizer guns…and we get one that way. Now we have a live specimen to cage, prod, poke and study at our whim.

I’m not sure I like that idea any better–that we’ve taken a free animal from its habitat, imprisoned it, repeatedly take samples from the critter, and then maybe we find out that it does have more similarities to humans, and enough intelligence to understand its world and predicament and environment than we thought.

Would the BF ever be released back into the wild? Even if so, how long would it take before we were satisfied with our evidence? Months, years…personally, I’m not sure that way is in any way more humane for the BF.

Again, I don’t see this as a simple question. From the discussion above, it’s clear that it is certainly not an easy question.

Maybe I’ll see one one day…and even if I do, I have no intention of taking a rifle with me…it will be cameras and notebooks…but the lure is there…and I don’t know if I could pull the trigger even if I did come across one and had a gun…there have been plenty of people who have had the opportunity and couldn’t do it either–and maybe that says something right there.

However, some days, sacrificing one BF to solve the mystery appeals to me.

43.springheeled jack wrote: How many people here would get absolutely ecstatic if a BF body was brought in? Think what it would mean to the field of cryptozoology, what it would mean to science, and the ramifications of what we think we know about the earth and what lives here…then you add the equation of the fact that the BF was brought in because a hunter shot him.

Again, how many people here would feel a little bad that someone had taken the shot, maybe guilty…but, still excited that we solved the mystery?

I just don’t need the mystery to be solved. I really don’t. If someone killed a BF, and we had the proof, that wouldn’t make me feel better in any way. I’d feel worse, actually. I don’t need anything “justified” and as far as our solving, or at least getting closer to, our own ancestry– it just doesn’t mean that much to me if that’s what has to happen.

However, let’s take this a step in the other direction…say we send our same hunters out there with high powered tranquilizer guns…and we get one that way. Now we have a live specimen to cage, prod, poke and study at our whim.

Which is just as horrible. I agree with you it isn’t any more humane, that is for sure.

However, some days, sacrificing one BF to solve the mystery appeals to me.

I appreciate your honesty. For myself, that idea simply doesn’t occur to me. It’s not a question at all. The need to solve a mystery simply isn’t that great.

Regan Lee: I understand completely why people are hesitant on this: HUMANS ARE THAT WAY. We are also predators, as hardened killers as the animal kingdom contains; killing is not something that is hard for us. Look at all the discussion of killing something near to human – and look at all the humans that have been killed out of hand, without discussion or apparent thought, deliberately, by other humans. (You will say, yeah, but…and then rationalize. That’s another thing we’re really really good at: rationalizing why we kill. The Commandment says: thou shalt not kill. Yet you routinely see Army chaplains rationalizing the behavior of soldiers. THOU SHALT NOT KILL means THAT. No excuses, no exceptions.)

I would be ecstatic to see the mystery solved. By a hunter’s bullet? Let the hunter deal with the fallout (and he/she should). Mystery solved! YAY!

Personally? I say no. We shouldn’t kill one.

Because of yes, how I would feel about that after the initial rush of Mystery Solved! But contrary to what people think, we don’t need to. What we need to do is get scientists interested in the evidence. To that end what rbhess says I agree with:

————————————————–

It seems more sensible to talk about building up a body of evidence to support the existence of this creature. Yes, thus far the physical evidence is inconclusive. Well, keep looking for it and collecting it. Sooner or later, a buildup of such evidence will become difficult to ignore. Moreover, attempting to get at the habits and behaviors of Bigfoot–if at all possible–will make it more likely that more conclusive evidence will be found–and perhaps–though this too seems wildly unlikely–an individual could be captured. At any rate, the fact is that patient Bigfoot enthusiasts in the field, over the years, have learned various tidbits of information about the animal, suggesting how it might live, where it might migrate to, and how it behaves. Yes, it’s still largely theory and speculation without much evidence to support it—but it’s a start. The only thing that can be done, it seems to me, is to continue in this vein—because until more evidence is accumulated, no recognized scientific body or institution is going to be willing to invest money into a study. The risk to them is simply too great, given such an outlandishly unlikely creature as Bigfoot.

————————————————————-

I don’t think one will be captured – or one should be killed – until the animal is confirmed. When it is, a body will come into science’s hands soon enough for precisely the reason rbhess states – the accumulation of data will make the search fruitful, mainly because scientists now *know* it will be. One thing I am surprised never to see postulated here is that the dearth of physical evidence probably comes primarily not from rarity, but from *reticence.* People don’t want to come forward because they’ve seen what happens to those who do, and now they know, and that is enough for them. They have also been confronted, up close and personal, with how hard it’s going to be to get that “proof” to someone who cares. Hint: even for a hunter, chopping a part off an animal that looks eerily human is tougher than anyone seems to think. In fact, if one believes reports, more than one hunter has had the opp, and failed to do it. Even if you manage to do that, the chain of custody for evidence in general is a very tricky one; it is not simply a matter of walking to a ranger station with a finger.

Count on it: we don’t get the body until science is convinced, or all but, that the animal is real.

“The cynic in me can’t help but observe that if or when a body is procured, people like Loren Coleman and Autumn Williams will be out of a job, so to speak.”

Well, don’t know so much about Ms. Williams. But Loren will still have plenty to do, because cryptozoology is zoology, and science seems to find much “new” (to us) life every year. And of course, once bigfoot is confirmed, bigfoot research will finally be able to, well, actually begin.

I think that there is more than enough evidence in hand to move this into the realm of science. The evidence withstands all the scientific scrutiny that has been brought to bear on it. That’s not saying it’s proof. But more than enough scientists with serious cred say it warrants following up; and science has ways of doing just that.

We won’t need to shoot one. Just build the number of interested scientists to a critical mass, and we’ll know soon enough.

This is obsurd! Why should someone kill a Cryptid to prove its real! At least take a picture of it! Killing could be a terrible thing, what if it has a family. Its like killing a tree to prove it was sick!